AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 30/08/2016 of the State Commission, Maharashtra in FA No. A/15/822. As per the calculations made by the Registry, there is a delay of more than 2000 days while the Petitioner contends that there is only 15 days delay as they got a certified copy of the Order dated 30.08.2016 of the State Commission on 24.08.2023 only and filed the RP during October, 2023. Challenge is to Order dated 30.08.2016 of the State Commission vide which the Appeal field by the Petitioner herein was dismissed for non-prosecution. As the Petitioner herein was himself the Appellant before the State Commission, it is difficult to accept their contention of no knowledge of State Commission’s Order dated 30.08.2016 for almost 7 years. We have carefully gone through the reasons stated in the Condonation of Delay Application which states that the delay is of 15 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the impugned Order, 55 days from the date of knowledge and 1212 days from the date of the impugned Order dated 30.08.2016. The Petitioner contends that they came to know about the case when they got a Notice regarding Execution Petition on 03.05.2023. An IA No. 14010 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. In the said IA, following reasons for delay / grounds for condonation have been mentioned:-
(a) The Petitioner is a cancer patient and has been consistently unwell since many years due to various diseases. The Petitioner was not aware of the progress in Appeal filed by him by the then engaged lawyer, who has assured him to inform about the progress in the proceedings of the Appeal No.A/15/822. Henceforth, he did not appear in the date of hearings before the Hon’ble State Commission.
(b) Even, the summons was received for the first time on 03.05.2023 on WhatsApp at 06:30 PM just a day ahead of hearing on 04.05.2023 from mobile number +91-96993334242 from Havaldar Mr. Ramchandra Veer of Naupada Police Station, Thane.
(c) Before 03.05.2023 neither the Petitioner nor his father Late Rajnikant Ramji Shah had any knowledge about the aforesaid Complaint bearing No. CC/10/419.
(d) The Petitioner is a cancer patient and could not challenge the ex-parte order on time due to being bed ridden and hence, there is a delay since 03.05.2023 in filing the present Revision Petition.
In order to condone the delay, the Petitioner has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the Revision Petition after the stipulated limitation period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81. Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case observed as follows :
Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] this Court explained the difference between a “good cause” and a “sufficient cause” and observed that every “sufficient cause” is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of “sufficient cause”.
The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale……..
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches.
The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, after taking note of various authorities/earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, culled out broad principles for considering the condonation of delay applications and also added few more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. Relevant paras of these are reproduced below:-
“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
x x x x
ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
x x x x
iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
x x x x
vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual
xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:
x x x x
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”
In Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 321], Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :
· 25. Much later, in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy this court referred to a large number of previous judgments, and observed that adoption of a strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may result in public mischief. Other decisions have highlighted that there cannot be a universal formula to judge whether sufficient cause has, or has not been shown and the exercise is necessarily fact specific; in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh, the court held:
“16. While considering [an] application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not.”
The court also emphasized that each case has to be balanced on the basis of its facts and the surrounding circumstances in which the parties act and behave.”
We have carefully gone through the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation mentioned in IA No. 14010 of 2023 as well as those adduced during the hearing. Under relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act / Rules / Regulations, Revision Petition has to be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The reasons for delay/ grounds for condonation are not found convincing.
In view of the foregoing, we find that sufficient and good grounds have not been made out by the Petitioner in the instant case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, IA No. 14010 of 2023 is dismissed. Consequently, Revision Petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.